The plaintiff had only $20 million in assets after 19 years in the business? Sorry, but I've got to go with my old nemisis (MWD) on this one. I don't think sex discrimination was involved in her dismissal.

Let me get this straight she had $20,000,000 AUM and annual commissions less than $220,000. After 19 years thats a joke. She should have been let go years ago. Heck any rep producing that little should have been fired!

The plaintiff had only $20 million in assets after 19 years in the business? Sorry, but I've got to go with my old nemisis (MWD) on this one. I don't think sex discrimination was involved in her dismissal.

Doberman, I agree, there's no basis I can see for a gender related suit UNLESS Tyler's branch mgr played the "I will take care of the boys" via the "account distribution game" but not the girls OR rewarded brokers who churned their clients rather than those who complied with "know thy client" which in her case was conservatively managing their money since her client base was/is elderly (typically low risk types more interested in preserving wealth rather than generating it). In the latter case, I would surmise securities regulators might have interest since "churning" is something they highly frown upon.

It appears there's a CFP versus non CFP war over here now and a "boys versus girls" one which is a shame. I had hoped those who post here would demonstrate a little more professionalism than that which is exhibited on that MWD YHOO board. I personally have no interest in 4 letter words unless they trade on the NDAQ.

Here's another article about a MALE broker over the age of 50 who was let go several years ago for even lower production than Tyler's:

My advice to brokers considering litigation is to go class action versus individual NASD/NYSE arbitration as it's less expensive and a good attorney would find the proper venue (friendly courts) as in some states, plaintiffs have to pay respondents' attorney fees if they lose.

If the above article has expired and can't be accessed, please feel free to e-mail me if any of you have interest.

It’s hard more likely that whatever accounts the manager was able to distribute when to people doing BUSINESS and not LOS 19s asleep at their desks, as this woman appeared to be, regardless of the broker’s sex.

“..OR rewarded brokers who churned their clients…”

That’s likely. A manger risked his/her career in this hyper-regulatory environment to “reward” brokers who churned. That’s simply delusional. Do you have any idea how many computer generated red flags go up when ROA goes above a certain level? Have you any idea how many levels of supervision would also have to be willing to risk their careers by ignoring those red flags? This isn’t 1980 when everything was done via stubby pencil, this is the 21 century where every account can be reviewed for the fees and commissions generated.

“..her than those who complied with "know thy client" which in her case was conservatively managing their money..”

Her problem wasn’t how she handled her client’s money, it’s how she failed to gather MORE clients and MORE assets to continue to handle in an appropriate manner.

“I had hoped those who post here would demonstrate a little more professionalism than that which is exhibited on that MWD YHOO board.”

I’ve seen that board and it’s a zoo. This place on its worst day is far, far better.

Like I said, I do NOT think there's any gender based "basis" for her to litigate and you're probably right about her not being very good at prospecting new clients.

On the churning, one would HOPE that's not going on anywhere at an major wirehouse. Does MWD employ Broker Audit or do they have an in-house way to catch this type of thing other than someone having to review the daily trading blotter?

That MWD message board is worse than the PRU one was a few years ago. Things got quite nasty prior to and during the WB "merger" of equals.

Let me get this straight she had $20,000,000 AUM and annual commissions less than $220,000. After 19 years thats a joke. She should have been let go years ago. Heck any rep producing that little should have been fired!

So you think doing what is in your clients' best interest is grounds for termination? I think you are forgetting why you're in the business. Sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action. We're here to help people, not to make money at their expense. Being a big producer doesn't always mean you give the best advice.

No thats not what i said. I believe that if your helping your clients, doing whats right by accident alone you would obtain more than 20mil aum in 20 years.

In this business if you take great care of your clients they are going to tell people they know about you. That alone should bring in several new assets per year. She averaged less than 1mill in new assets per year. Please explain to me how she did such a good job and grew so little over the years. Im sure she didnt do anything illegal im just saying she didnt do a good job of building her business.

I dont know about you but my clients-advocates (which most of my clients are) refer people to me everyday. Not because im a big producer but because i care about them. The most important thing to me is my relationship with them. I believe thats why i get so many referrals. I always put them first.

You really should find out more about someone before you jump to conclusions!

I was jumping to conclusions.... I asked a question. And my criticism is based soley on the comment that "any rep producing that little should have been fired."

Just because she doesn't make money for the firm, doesn't mean she shouldn't have a job. If she can live on $220,000, that's her decision. I'd hate to be the one to have to tell this story to her clients.

I agree 150% with all of your other remarks about relationships and my team operates the same way.

I have more information on the Jan Tyler situation (via this week's issue of Securities Week---can't post a link since it's not on the web) as well as more broker departures out of MWD (most likely brokers who were terminated for not making their numbers). They went to WB in the past 2 weeks.

Apparently Tyler did file a discrimination suit with the EEOC alleging gender/age as to why she was terminated (this was reported in this week's issue of SW). I do NOT know if she plans to go NASD or NYSE arb as well nor do I know WHO is representing her (lawyers).

On who bailed MWD or was terminated and is now with WB, e-mail me if you have interest.

I think every rep working for a wirehouse, bank, Indy firm etc knows that there are production requirements. I agree with you that she might have been very comfortable producing that amount. If she wants to stay at that level she should open her own shop (indy). Everyone knows that when you work for someone else you have to produce to keep that job. No secret there.

I was jumping to conclusions.... I asked a question. And my criticism is based soley on the comment that "any rep producing that little should have been fired."

I happen to agree with the “should have been fired” comment. She was retired while still at her desk. $20M in assets (her claim, btw, who knows what the real number was) after 19 years? She had firing coming in a big way. She worked for a “for profit firm” and her asset gathering failed to provide for a reasonable profit. There’s no real defense for her.

iconsult100:

Just because she doesn't make money for the firm, doesn't mean she shouldn't have a job.

Are you joking? Do you think she worked (“worked” isn’t a fair word, it isn’t “working” to have that little in AUM after 19 years) for a charity? She can have a job and do little to no business on her dime, be she has no right to ask others (shareholders) to pay it.

iconsult100:

If she can live on $220,000, that's her decision.

She wasn’t “living” on $220k (again, HER numbers, the truth is in doubt. All that’s clear is that she was under $255k, the cut-off line for her LOS) she was PRODUCING $220k. She was making $70k, gross.

iconsult100:

I'd hate to be the one to have to tell this story to her clients.

Obviously there weren’t many clients TO tell the story to. If they left with her, fine. There’s still an open desk available for someone who wants to work and at least one bit of deadwood is gone from the office, no longer dulling the air.

MSDog, as cold as it was, it was pretty well put and I'm inclined to agree. I'm one month into Indy and I expect to clear the $20 mil under mgt hurdle at least by the end of my 1st indy year, with a non-compete in place. I got my series seven in 1999 and left my previous employer with about $50 million AUM...and I don't consider myself a big producer by any means.

...and while I object to calling her a "whiney broad" (see earlier post), I also think it is wrong for her to try and use her gender as an excuse when there are plenty of successful women in this industry...sounds like she's looking for a quick paycheck to me...

MS Dog..... Is she was producing 220 and taking home 70, then that leaves 150 to go to the firm. She wasn't leaching off the shareholders and I know it doesn't cost MS 150 to keep an FA employed.

Indytwo... I agree with you for the most part, however, there is a reason that this move suprised me so much. When I was hired, I was told "FAs who make it through the first 2 years don't get fired unless they do something illegal. Obviously, if you're not making enough money to live on, you will just leave on your own accord. You're pay directly reflects what you produce."

MS Dog..... Is she was producing 220 and taking home 70, then that leaves 150 to go to the firm. She wasn't leaching off the shareholders and I know it doesn't cost MS 150 to keep an FA employed.

No firm has the obligation to employ under-performing reps. You'll find few people who know the business who think under $225k after 19 years isn't pathetic. Let her pay for her own office, equipment, etc and do that sort of part time work if she wants.